STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ANNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Cri. A. No. 141 of 1997 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1-9-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer and additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, in No. SDK/ dbcr/485/94. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the State has come up with this revision.

(2.) THE accused by name Mahesh Gowda and Ramesh were found transporting 300 sachets of arrack in an autorickshaw without valid licence and permit. The same were seized by the Excise Authorities. After registering a case the said goods along with autorickshaw were produced before the Authorised Officer and Additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, for confiscation. Accordingly, the Authorised Officer after holding an enquiry confiscated the autorickshaw bearing No. MEG 7363 belonging to the respondent by an order dated 1-9-1997. Accordingly, the respondent-Annayya, said to be the owner of the autorickshaw preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Cri. A, No. 141 of 1997. After hearing both sides the learned sessions Judge set aside the order dated 1-9 1997 passed by the Authorised Officer confiscating the autorickshaw to the State.

(3.) IN this behalf the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that a parallel proceedings has been initiated against the accused persons as well as the owner of the autorickshaw and since autorickshaw has been used to transport 300 sachets of arrack without valid licence or permit therefore the excise authorities seized the autorickshaw as well as the properties carried in that autorickshaw and also arrested Mahesh Gowda and Ramesh. Merely because; the Trial Court acquitted the aforesaid accused in C. C. No. 1906 of 1996 for the offence for which they were charge-sheeted does not mean that this vehicle has not at all been used for transporting 300 sachets of arrack.